Google blocks Android movie rentals from rooted devices, blames DRM

DRM is being blamed for Google's decision to lock out rooted devices from …

Google, which often touts the "openness" of its Android mobile operating system as one of its primary benefits, is blocking access to its new Android movie rental service to rooted Android devices. Google blames "requirements related to copyright protection" for the move, and this isn't the first time DRM has caused problems for consumers. But it serves as yet another example that Android's openness only extends as far as it benefits Google.

As many Ars readers know, users often "root" Android-based smartphones and tablets to extend their functionality. In Linux-based systems like Android, there is typically a "root" super-user account that has heightened administrative privileges and unfettered access to the operating system. By enabling the root account, users can introduce software components that have been extracted from other Android devices, modify the user interface, and more. It also allows them to install Android updates that device makers haven't gotten around to making available in a timely manner.

In most cases, rooting still allows users access to Google's services, including the Android Market. However, Google is restricting access to its YouTube-powered movie rental service to non-rooted devices. Users with rooted devices attempting to watch Android rentals will get an "Error 49" message, noting that their device was unable to "fetch license for movie."

Google's support documents state that DRM is to blame. "You'll receive this 'Error 49' message if you attempt to play a movie on a rooted device," according to Google's related support article. "Rooted devices are currently unsupported due to requirements related to copyright protection."

The restriction is seen as yet another slap in the face to users who have bought in to Google's claims that the Android platform is superior other mobile platforms because of its "openness."

"Nice move, Google," wrote AndroidCentral's Jerry Hildenbrand. "That makes me want to buy more of your products and use more of your services, so I can be treated like a criminal just because I'm smart enough to get rid of CityID, or want a safe version of Android on my phone."

It's almost certain that content providers required Google to lock down movie rentals to un-rooted devices—Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and others face similar burdens. But locking out all rooted devices seems an odd move, considering that Android was originally touted as a platform that gives users control, as opposed to platforms like iOS that allow few user modifications.

Given the recent decision to hold back the source code for Honeycomb, and the revelation that Google uses its Android licensing terms as "a club" to make device makers "do what we want," this latest move serves to illustrate that Android may not be as open as Google would like its users to believe.

175 Reader Comments

This isn't just treating people like criminals, it's fostering copyright infringement. People who can't get their movies legally will get them in other ways, haven't the studios learnt their lesson yet?

> But it also serves as yet another example that Android's openness only extends as far as it benefits Google.

Do you honestly think that Google had any choice in this? They're dealing with companies who have a reputation for installing malware on your PC so you can listen to the music you bought... I'm surprised they managed to get any licenses at all.

Granted, I wouldn't be paying for said content even if my phone wasn't rooted.

The problem is none of the other phone OS's are nearly as open. It's like hiking with your friend and you come across a bear. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your friend. So long as google is more open than its competitors, it has no reason to be fully open.

And I was just about to root my Droid. Oh well, it's not like I'll ever need to rent movies for my phone anyway. But wasn't rooting an Android device supposed to be more supported than say, the iPhone?

Who the hell wants to watch a movie on their phone anyway? Really it blows my mind that movie producers and CE companies have managed to convince people that they need to watch movies both on 52" 3D LCD TVs and 2" phone screens.

Big deal, the Android Movie Rental service will be a closed-source product, just like Netflix, which is merely an addition to Android, and by no means an actual part of the operating system.

I can see sense in this - with a rooted phone, one could access the movies they have 'rented', only to copy them onto their hard drives as rips. Absurd, of course, that anyone would bother doing this when you can download any movie you ever wanted for free, but Big Content still feels compelled to protect this from abuse.

This story is just total hype. Frankly, when (and it is definitely a 'when') Honeycomb gets released as open-source, and the CyanogenMod team releases their build of Honeycomb, it'll be great to be running a fully open-source OS on my tablet, without any closed-source chaff like the Movie Rental service.

None of the other phones are pimping themselves as the Hacker's Friend like Android is though. It's not like Apple or Microsoft are all "Neckbeards rejoice! Our OS looks and acts just as shitty as that garbage you quack out onto SourceForge before forgetting about"

> But it also serves as yet another example that Android's openness only extends as far as it benefits Google.

Do you honestly think that Google had any choice in this? They're dealing with companies who have a reputation for installing malware on your PC so you can listen to the music you bought... I'm surprised they managed to get any licenses at all.

^^^^This

At what point did you all think that google would have the power to slap the MPAA in the face and make them like it ?

This is part of what they had to promise the MPAA and studios to get the right to rent their products.

Who the hell wants to watch a movie on their phone anyway? Really it blows my mind that movie producers and CE companies have managed to convince people that they need to watch movies both on 52" 3D LCD TVs and 2" phone screens.

Edit: Also, get off my lawn.....damn kids.

Anyone who has ever had to travel? And yes you sound like a grumpy old man

This is a rediculous article. Normally, I love Ars technica because of their unbiased "TECHNICALLY" written articles. But this is just uninformed slander. The only Ars worthy statement in the entire article is "It's almost certain that content providers required Google to lock down movie rentals to un-rooted devices." Google has a right to do whatever it pleases with its O/S, and it CHOOSES to give folks the option to root their phones without undue penalties. The "other" guy does not allow that. However, if Google wants to play with the movie industry (Read: industry with lots of lawyers) then they have to play by the rules. If you want to root your phone you have to accept that the Movie industry is run by a bunch of ancients that don't understand technology.

These are issues forced on Google, and other companies as well. Both Google and Amazon has just recently ticked off the music industry, so I'm sure they are on thin ice as it is.

Perhaps one day, this author will have the technical prowess to be worthy of an Ars writer...but today is not that day.

That is all, I'm going to go click on the Science button now. I expect to find an article there written by an intelligent person.

Who cares? Who wants to rent a movie for watching it on a phone?? If you stream it over 3G 2 things can happen: You run out of battery before the movie ends or, your monthly data plan runs out, also before the movie ends... If I want to watch a movie on my phone I copy it to the sd card... It's not like "oh my god I want to see a movie right now!!"...

This isn't just treating people like criminals, it's fostering copyright infringement. People who can't get their movies legally will get them in other ways, haven't the studios learnt their lesson yet?

NO.........the MPAA/RIAA are both assholes and they are to blame for their own krapp.DRM = FAIL

This has nothing to do with Google. When you use content, you use it with the permission and grace of the copyright owners. If they don't want their content to run on Rooted phones, that has little to do with Google's decisions. I imagine the author should try dictating terms to content owners and see where they get. The big players find it hard enough, yet it's very easy to write a simple article like this and spin it so that Google looks like the bad guy

Who cares? Who wants to rent a movie for watching it on a phone?? If you stream it over 3G 2 things can happen: You run out of battery before the movie ends or, your monthly data plan runs out, also before the movie ends... If I want to watch a movie on my phone I copy it to the sd card... It's not like "oh my god I want to see a movie right now!!"...

There are these things called outlets, and wifi. They are pretty useful.

Edit: I get at least 2 movies on a single charge, what phone are you using that has such horrendious battery life?

The problem is none of the other phone OS's are nearly as open. It's like hiking with your friend and you come across a bear. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your friend. So long as google is more open than its competitors, it has no reason to be fully open.

Well now, it looks like DRM is continuing do it's job of hurting only the law abiding.

The folks they are after simply chuckle to themselves and continue unabated, while folks who would normally be happy to participate in the market (spend money) are left out in the cold simply for wanting control of the machine they bought.

And I was just about to root my Droid. Oh well, it's not like I'll ever need to rent movies for my phone anyway. But wasn't rooting an Android device supposed to be more supported than say, the iPhone?

Shh!!!! Apple will try to install new anti-circumvention tools and jailbreaking detection. Don't give that that idea.I never heard of rooting being supported anyhow.

The problem is none of the other phone OS's are nearly as open. It's like hiking with your friend and you come across a bear. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your friend. So long as google is more open than its competitors, it has no reason to be fully open.

Conclusions:

"So long as google is more open than its competitors, it has no reason to be fully open."

1) Android is not open.

"You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your friend."

2) Android will leave you behind in a fight. Where is the update for my Samsung phone?

This isn't just treating people like criminals, it's fostering copyright infringement. People who can't get their movies legally will get them in other ways, haven't the studios learnt their lesson yet?

NO.........the MPAA/RIAA are both assholes and they are to blame for their own krapp.DRM = FAIL

why buy movies with DRM.Demand DRM Free or don't feed the pig

No. These idiots are basically saying: If you want to be in total control of every minutia of your hone, we'll label you a "pirate" and a criminal without proof.

Google's movie rental service is entirely separate from the Android OS, and blocking rooted Android devices from accessing the servers involves doing... well, absolutely nothing to the operating system itself. You could say that this is an example of Google's failure to be "open" as a company, but claiming that an unrelated service offered by the same company blocking rooted Android devices makes Android itself less open is asinine. And I'm really holding back with my language here.

Well now, it looks like DRM is continuing do it's job of hurting only the law abiding.

The folks they are after simply chuckle to themselves and continue unabated, while folks who would normally be happy to participate in the market (spend money) are left out in the cold simply for wanting control of the machine they bought.

If I didn't need to pay $500+ for the actual device, I would be very happy with that restriction.I say "Go Studios"! Give us free devices so that we watch your crap that you spit out every summer. I'll even pay per view, as long as the device is paid by you.However, since the device is technically my personal property - I will let your crap onto my device under my terms.

This is what kills me about Google; making claims (e.g. about openness) and then having to retract them because later they realize they have to actually work with companies providing content. Don't get me wrong; I'm a HUGE fan of open source, FSF, etc., but you think Google had done their homework first and had seen that Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc. had run into these exact problems before.

First, stupid move by google. There are DRM schemes that don't require locking down your phone to use. Just encrypt it and you should be relatively safe.

Second, it doesn't matter how you block it, there WILL be a way to get your movie and who would know enough to bypass the encryption stated above, will be savy enough to get the movie off your phone, no matter what.

With this scheme you're only hurting your normal users with a glass fence. They won't bypass the protection (nor rent movies) and at the same time whoever wants to, will. Way to go.

Third, this story is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with google's openess, what is open now will still be open in the future. It doesn't matter if google supports a kind of openess, if the movie industry doesn't, they have to abide in order to provide a service to (some) users. It has nothing to do with how open the platform is or google views on the subject.

By casting doubt and blowing the whole issue out of proportion I can safely assume the writer of this article is an Apple fanboy, so, not to be taken seriously. Ever.